Assessment of EoI:152



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 152 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: The landscape is part of a unique ecosystem stretching from Kenya to the Serengeti in Northern Tanzania. It teems with a myriad of wildlife species as well as birds. The ecosystem is also shared with pastoralists and their herds of cattle, sheep and goats.

Evidence B:Project Area is adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve and includes 15 Community Conservancies. The greater landscape indicates a high species range and rarity and includes 2 KBAs. EoI indicates that 70% of wildlife in Kenya depends on areas outside of formal protection making role of CCAs essential to wildlife conservation and human conflict management


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: The ecosystem is ver significant for climate mitigation. But its survival primarily depends on the conservation of the water tower on the higher elevations.

Evidence B:Presence of Irrecoverable Carbon is moderate.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: Conservancies are owned by communities adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve. The governance structure, however is a new concept which attempts to bring together all the conservancies for collective action and overall mutual benefit and for the ultimate conservation of the ecosystem.

Evidence B:Proposed areas are managed under a Conservancy System adopted due to its similarity to traditional governance practice in Maasailand. Conservancies are led by landowner committees. Indigenous Peoples are not recognized in Kenya. The applicant association has a membership of 15 Community Conservancies including 1,425 KM2. Per EoI Part 1 Q.2: ‘Community conservancies are now recognized by law as protected areas with strict requirements to achieve the PA status. One of these obligation is that a conservancy must demonstrate strong governance structure. MMWCA support these entities to establish strong governance by provide a Governance and leadership training to the Land owner committees (LOC) as well as ensure legal registration of conservancies. Conservancies are lead by LOCs (land owner committee members), selected from different clusters or villages. In each LOC, a third of the represenatives [sic] must be women.’


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: There is adequate clarity in the proposal on how unique is the area is culturally. The 15 conservancies all belong to the Maasai pastoralists so the cultural aspect is uniform.

Evidence B:Blending of traditional governance and culture with new approach to conservation management is clearly described. Unique approach seeks to maintain traditional livelihood practice while adapting to conservation priorities.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: Fragmentation and habitat loss are the most serious threats since it affects core wildlife dispersal areas and important corridors for seasonally migrating species of wildlife.Invasive species and over-exploitation of the resource are also threats.

Evidence B:Multiple serious threats to both biodiversity and human well-being including habitat loss, land degradation due to overgrazing, incompatible land use, human wildlife/conflict and others exist in the proposed area. The impacts of climate change are intensifying threat levels.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: The concept of conservancies is fully supported legally and in terms of policy. There is a realization that the sustainability of the conservation areas is solely dependent upon adjacent areas since more than 70% of wildlife reside outside conservation areas.

Evidence B:It is difficult to rate this questions since indigenous peoples are not recognized in Kenya, which has not signed ILO 169 nor ratified UNDRIP. Community land rights are recognized per Article 63: Aug 12, 2011 · Article 63 of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees the rights of communities to their lands and territories. It states that community land consists of land lawfully held, managed, or used by specific communities as community forests, grazing areas or shrines and that it includes ancestral lands and lands traditionally occupied by hunter-gatherer communities. https://www.iwgia.org/en/kenya/655-indigenous-peoples-in-kenya The Conservancy model is legally recognized and has proved to be successful - per EoI the “…Mara conservancies model is one of the most successful community conservation approaches in Africa.”


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Out of necessity, government not only supports the idea of conservancies, it actually encourages it.

Evidence B:See Q. 6 above. IPLC conservation is occurring vis CCAs, but not promoted as IPLC conservation.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The idea of conservancies is now an old concept so it is well established. Scalling-up opportunities are many.

Evidence B:The applicant-MMWCA-includes 15 conservancies with q4,532 landowners.- an area close to the same size as the Maasai Mara National Reserve. The concept has met with significant success as a model for scaling up.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Maasai Mara is full of projects that are complementary to this one as individual conservancies. The difference is that the proposed project aims to bring them all together for collective action.

Evidence B:Other initiatives and partners are described in detail in the EoI and investments from USAID, The Nature Conservancy and NORAD



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 27/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 25/30

Average Total Score: 26/30



Performance of EoI 152 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: The Maasai Mara is a Globally recognized unique facility on the UNESCO list of World Heritage sites. It displays unique environmental benefits that has a potential of delivering significant benefits.

Evidence B:The EoI proposes the expansion of a proven approach to IPLC stewardship that has achieved success in an environment where government does not recognize the presence of IPs.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: They are both very clear, However the number of trainings needed and the purpose and outcome are not clearly outlined.

Evidence B:The proposed activities are clear and contribute expanding IPLC stewardship to the ecosystem level, building on the management plans of the individual conservancies and expanding the areas under management by adding new conservancies. However, the scope of activities is very ambitious, especially in the topic of climate mitigation. The EoI presents a comprehensive view of necessary areas of work, but limiting the focus of ICI investment may be needed for a full proposal. Co-financing may be needed to achieve all the objectives included in the EoI. Also note that the activity described in Part 2. Q.8.c.ii involves resettlement.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: They are quite realistic, However considering the number of conservancies that are aimed to be brought together and acting in unison to accomplish a myriad of tasks to reduce the stated threats, seems like a major task.

Evidence B:Actions to mitigate defined threats are clearly presented and appropriate. See comments to Q.2 immediately above on scope of proposed activities.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Well aligned but the EOI had not previously brought together so many conservancies together.

Evidence B:As stated, funding activities may require co-financing. Limiting focus of objectives for ICI specific funding may be needed to stay within ICI project level investment.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Previously moderate funding. There are however a number of partners that could provide co-financing.

Evidence B:Sources of funding are significant although exact grant numbers are not given. Funders include USAID, The Nature Conservancy, NORAD. A significant source of funding indicated is fees from Tourism Partners operating within the conservancies which fund USD7.5M annually for lease payments to landowners. This revenue is currently under threat due to COVID 19 impact on tourism industry.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: They are moderate but are IPLC led and have the potential of realizing global environmental benefits.

Evidence B:If considering that project areas are adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve and supports wildlife outside of reserve, area doubles from 141 to 291Kha under improved management. Achieving project objectives for ecosystem level management plan. Would achieve the goal of land under improved practice and increase the number of hectares if proposed new conservancies are added.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: It is the basic livelihood and cultural dynamics of livestock management that is at the core of this EOI. The project uses them to realize its goals.

Evidence B:EoI comprehensively addresses cultural and livelihood issues in the prosed activities. Indicators could use more clarity.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: If the various stakeholder perform their tasks in unison as proposed by the EOI, there is bound to be a realization of long term benefits to biodiversity in the ecosystem.

Evidence B:The vison is clear and long term and provides clear areas of work for co-financing investment. If ICI funding were focused on the eco-system level management plan and the expansion of conservancy land, it would provide more comprehensive focus on GEBs form the proposed areas the foundation for improving the management of the conservancies for both GEBS and livelihoods.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: The EOI seems to have a clear understanding of the relevant national policy priorities relating to the project.

Evidence B:The vison is clear and long term and provides clear areas of work for co-financing investment. If ICI funding were focused on the eco-system level management plan and the expansion of conservancy land, it would provide more comprehensive focus on GEBs form the proposed areas the foundation for improving the management of the conservancies for both GEBS and livelihoods.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The EOI shows that it is guided by the 2010 Kenyan constitution in terms of gender parity and mainstreaming.

Evidence B:Gender issues are clearly described and specific activities defined to address them. Activities include approach to improve inclusiveness and training in planning and decision making as well as livelihood strategies. Activities focus on both women and girls.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: There is clearly demonstrated innovation in this EOI and there is possibility of scalling up.

Evidence B:The current success of the Mara Conservancy models provides a solid basis for scaling up this approach. Per the EoI, six additional Conservancies are currently under development. Continued successful results can provide support to the recognition of IPs and their rights and role in biodiversity conservation and provision if GEBs, The GoK has been slow to take action on recognizing indigenous peoples and their rights, even after the judgement of the ACHPR in favor of the Ogiek people. ‘…The government of Kenya as of 2019 has yet to implement the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ judgment in the Ogiek case’. (https://minorityrights.org/2019/06/05/)



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 32/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 31/40

Average Total Score: 31.5/40



Performance of EoI 152 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: Some of the employees are not IPLC but they might have been hired for their expertise or perhaps the legal requirement that 30% of employees of any organization should come from outside the area.

Evidence B:The applicant organization MMWCA membership includes 15 IPLC community conservancies.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: The leadership on the ground comprise IPLC and they seem to have a long term experience in the subject matter of conservation.

Evidence B:Informative detail provided in EoI on management personnel and structure. MMWCA has a 7 year history of coordinating activities in 15 Conservancies in Maasai lands.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: The lead person has long term experience in IPLC and working with networks and partners. He also has had a long time experience working in the area and topic.

Evidence B:Strong partnerships with member conservancies are indicated as well as with relevant local government agencies and ministries and the Maa Trust.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: Relevant skills are mentioned for most personnel, but some are not mentioned. It is possible they have the right skills but one cannot assume so.

Evidence B:Skill sets of MMWCA staff are clearly defined and as described demonstrate the skills and experience necessary for planning and implementation of the proposed activities.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: The EOI shows the staff occupying different positions which must depend on their expertise.

Evidence B:Per EoI-All criteria met


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: The lead organization has relevant knowledge on safeguards and other standards required by GEF.

Evidence B:More information on extend of action and knowledge of safeguards would be needed for a full proposal. Activities include proposed resettlement of one area without addressing related safeguard issues.



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 27/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 25/30

Average Total Score: 26/30



Performance of EoI 152 in East Africa Drylands - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)